Most software EULAs are not fully legal in.au due to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and associate trade practice law which lets a consumer return goods if faulty or do not work as specified.
Quote:
Under the Act the consumer is entitled to expect to enjoy quiet possession of the goods and to own the goods outright, subject to lawful restrictions made known to the consumer before purchase.
As a consumer, goods that you purchase must:
* be of merchantable quality--goods have to meet a basic level of quality and performance given the price and description of the goods
* be fit for the purpose--goods must do the job you made clear to the supplier you wanted them to do or that are implied from the circumstances in which you purchased the goods
* match the description or sample given to you before purchase, whether through a catalogue, labelling, packaging, on a website or in person.
Remedy or appropriate action
If you believe that one of these conditions or warranties has not been met, you have a choice of possible actions that may be available depending on the circumstances.
If you find you have a problem with goods or services, you should stop using the goods and approach the seller or the service provider as soon as possible to explain the fault or problem. You can also explain your preferred remedy to the situation or problem, taking into account that the Act is not designed to protect consumers who are careless or unreasonable in their demands.
You may want to ask the service provider to repeat the service, or pay for the service to be repeated. You may want to ask that the goods be repaired or replaced or pursue a refund. Sellers are not required to provide you with a refund if you have simply changed your mind or you find a similar or the same item more cheaply elsewhere.
Also under.au common law you cannot contract out of negligence. Simply: If you software is faulty, and the vendor knows (or can reasonable know about the fault) and does damage then the vendor is liable.
I think M$ is planning this as a last ditch. I think they are being very wary of how they approach Linux as a competitor in hopes that suits like SCO's will stifle Linux. Now that it's becoming obvious that SCO's suit isn't likely to succeed, they are hedging their bets with patents. I think this could ultimately backfire on them even if they hold these patents. Prior art is one aspect they aren't figuring on.
The one company M$ needs to fear the most if they start playing in this space is IBM. IBM could crucify M$ with its patent portfolio. IBM are betting their future on Linux, so will defend it to the death.
The only thing more powerful than a M$ lawyer is an IBM lawyer. I was around in the 70's and 80's and remember the IBM anti-trust thang. (IBM wons theirs, but AT&T lost).
However the article makes a terrible assumption, that Microsoft is way outspending "Open Source" with R&D dollars!! Six billion (for MS) to ten million (OSDL labs R&D budget).
If they are really out spending FOSS then why are their products so bloated, insecure and crappy?
Over the last 8 weeks I have installed 2.6 based kernel systems: Mandrake 10, Fedora C2, Knoppix 3.4 and Suse 9.1.
I used 3 platforms:
a. An old AMD K2 350
b. VM Ware
c. A 2.6Ghz P4
Personal assessment:
1. Sound - alsa is better than 2.4 OSS
2. All distros were easier to install and manage than there previous kernel 2.4 offerings
3. I liked Suse9.1 the best (mainly because of YaST and ease of mangement)
4. I liked KDE better than Gnome (don't flame - it just my preference)
I had used RHL 8 in the past - this was an eval on my part - I'm now a Suse fan.
We are now seeing the death throws of IPv4. IPv4 is beyond use by date, just that we have not woken up yet.
IPv6 will hit in a big bang for the following reasons:
1. Asian address demand, particularly China (population) who are REALLY pissed that they don't have a Class A address
2. G3 Mobile devices
Once the need for REAL IP addresses (not NATed) for home use and G3 devices then *everyone* will be screaming for IPv6.
I was addressing the corporate market. Your assessment of the consumer market is correct. I belive that pre-installed OSS solutions are the answer.
One of the main problems at this time is the lack of game support for Linux. Many consumers want a product (PC with software) that will game as well as help with homework etc.
Maybe in the longer term a Wine/DirectX environment on Linux will allow Windoze PC games to be installed and run to the same level as they do under Windoze.
Today there is a big gap between Server and Desktop requirements. In time we hope the gap will shrink. As the cost of M$ desktop escalates OSS will fill the void - I hope.
Microsoft's value proposition is product based, i.e. sell lots of units of software product to make profit.
OSS value proposition is service based. Give the software away, and provide services, consulting etc. to help companies deploy and use the software. Companies may get support from either internal and/or external resources - either way they cost $.
Note: You still need services for product based vendors.
IBM (and others) have a hybrid model, services and software product sales. IBM get much more revenue from services than they do from software product. Interestingly, IBM will heavily discount there products (80%) in competetive situtaions - guess what? they want the service revenue!
Which model wins in the long run? The market will eventually sort that out.
Assuming that a service based model wins, then product oriented companies will fail: Which is why M$ are poohing their pants on this issue.
The basic economic free market model for OSS assumes a service based model. In fact for OSS to really work, it needs a really free market. Software patents are a really big risk for OSS, praticularly where the granted patent is for the trivial (one click, scroll bars, progress bars etc.)
Now we talk free market - we get political (where are Stallman and Raymeond when u need them:-). I won't go political.
As having a very long experience in the Digital (DEC) product range (Since 1975: PDP8, PDP11, VAX780.....) and having written many lines of Macro32 code for VMS apps including device drivers I make the following comments:
1. Cutler used VMS architectectural ideas in WinNT (Published fact)
2. One MAJOR ommission - probably the most important - was the Distributed Lock Manager (DLM) - which made VMS clustering work
3. Oracle via its purchase of Digital RDB IP and later licensing from Compaq have made the DLM the basis for their Real Application Cluster (RAC) technology
4. Had the DLM been licensed by M$ then WinNT etc may have had decent clustering (NB: A good DLM is critical to making clusters scale) - M$ didnt and suffer today because of that
5. HP are sitting on a goldmine of formerly Digital IP and like Digital cannot market it - very sad:-(
6. Oracle are making huge forward steps standing on the shoulders of others
In the annotations, which were called "Notes", Ada Lovelace described how the Analytical Engine could be programmed and gave what many consider to be the first ever computer program.
She described the Analytical Engine in the following way [6]:
The distinctive characteristic of the Analytical Engine, and that which has rendered it possible to endow mechanism with such extensive faculties as bid fair to make this engine the executive right-hand of abstract algebra, is the introduction into it of the principle which Jacquard devised for regulating, by means of punched cards, the most complicated patterns in the fabrication of brocaded stuffs. It is in this that the distinction between the two engines lies. Nothing of the sort exists in the Difference Engine. We may say most aptly that the Analytical Engine weaves algebraical patterns just as the Jacquard-loom weaves flowers and leaves.
She also wrote in the Notes [6]:
Again, [the Analytical Engine] might act upon other things besides number, were objects found whose mutual fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations, and which should be also susceptible of adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the engine . . .
Ada Lovelace born 1815; Alan Turing born 1912
The sexy chic wins! Too bad that the Ada programming language was named after her - way to formal, I think she would have liked something kool like perl - a love^^^^necklace of perls:-)
I live down under (in Australia). Given that spintronics is based on the concepts of up and down, would I need to install spintronic equipment inverted?
:-) Yes its lame, but it is late Tuesday afternoon as I write and I really need to go home.
Tasmania (a state of.au) has Senator Brian Haradine. Haradine has pushed for Govt subsidised Internet in the economically depressed town of Launceton in Tasmania with the provision that the ADSL roll out in that area have content filtering. Haradine's justification is the "protection of children from pornography", which of itself is a good thing - his implementraion method has huge free speach implications. This is how.au politicians think - they need some tech education.
Any of these type of laws, no matter how well intended, reduce our basic freedoms.
The FTA has many benefits for both.au and.us; but some of the bagage like the DMCA are really really bad and driven by very commercial interests.
1. Company XYZ uses Linux. 2. Darl & Co sue XYZ 3. XYZ put up a really weak defense, maybe they are funded by a Redmond based company 4. Darl & Co win the case 5. There is now a LEGAL PRECEDENT
Oh cr*p! Now IBM, Red Hat, et. al. have major issues.
Slashdot Mirror
After all these takedowns we can rename it to BitTrickle.
What about legit uses like getting Linux distros?
Quote: Also under
A couple of suggestions...
Jsoftware (sort of APL but ASCII) not FOSS but free as in beer.
Also GPL'ed Maxima is good.
The only thing more powerful than a M$ lawyer is an IBM lawyer. I was around in the 70's and 80's and remember the IBM anti-trust thang. (IBM wons theirs, but AT&T lost).
However the article makes a terrible assumption, that Microsoft is way outspending "Open Source" with R&D dollars!! Six billion (for MS) to ten million (OSDL labs R&D budget). If they are really out spending FOSS then why are their products so bloated, insecure and crappy?
Would someone tell Oracle!! Oracle is per core. On a P4 HT chip Oracle count 2 CPUs.
This must be the long awaited Mozilla Internet Exploder Compatibility Suite (MIECS).
:-)
Be careful, M$ may want to sue you over patent technology of some such thing, that is if Darl wont get you first.
Oracle count a Pentium IV HT as two CPUs. (I asked my account rep). So it gets legal definitional. What does the vendor define as a CPU or Processor?
Oracle used to have power based licensing ie: MHz x Number of Processors - they dropped that silly idea real quick.
Processor based licenses for Oracle is slowing the adoption of their 10g (grid) edition deployment on to arrays of low cost linux boxen.
These issues also apply to products like IBM WebSphere etc.
Market pressue in the end will fix this problem.
Just point YaST at the nearest mirror - and whammo! All happens.
Over the last 8 weeks I have installed 2.6 based kernel systems: Mandrake 10, Fedora C2, Knoppix 3.4 and Suse 9.1.
I used 3 platforms:
a. An old AMD K2 350 b. VM Ware c. A 2.6Ghz P4
Personal assessment:
1. Sound - alsa is better than 2.4 OSS
2. All distros were easier to install and manage than there previous kernel 2.4 offerings
3. I liked Suse9.1 the best (mainly because of YaST and ease of mangement)
4. I liked KDE better than Gnome (don't flame - it just my preference)
I had used RHL 8 in the past - this was an eval on my part - I'm now a Suse fan.
We are now seeing the death throws of IPv4. IPv4 is beyond use by date, just that we have not woken up yet. IPv6 will hit in a big bang for the following reasons: 1. Asian address demand, particularly China (population) who are REALLY pissed that they don't have a Class A address 2. G3 Mobile devices Once the need for REAL IP addresses (not NATed) for home use and G3 devices then *everyone* will be screaming for IPv6.
I was addressing the corporate market. Your assessment of the consumer market is correct. I belive that pre-installed OSS solutions are the answer.
One of the main problems at this time is the lack of game support for Linux. Many consumers want a product (PC with software) that will game as well as help with homework etc.
Maybe in the longer term a Wine/DirectX environment on Linux will allow Windoze PC games to be installed and run to the same level as they do under Windoze.
Today there is a big gap between Server and Desktop requirements. In time we hope the gap will shrink. As the cost of M$ desktop escalates OSS will fill the void - I hope.
Microsoft's value proposition is product based, i.e. sell lots of units of software product to make profit.
:-). I won't go political.
OSS value proposition is service based. Give the software away, and provide services, consulting etc. to help companies deploy and use the software. Companies may get support from either internal and/or external resources - either way they cost $.
Note: You still need services for product based vendors.
IBM (and others) have a hybrid model, services and software product sales. IBM get much more revenue from services than they do from software product. Interestingly, IBM will heavily discount there products (80%) in competetive situtaions - guess what? they want the service revenue!
Which model wins in the long run? The market will eventually sort that out.
Assuming that a service based model wins, then product oriented companies will fail: Which is why M$ are poohing their pants on this issue.
The basic economic free market model for OSS assumes a service based model. In fact for OSS to really work, it needs a really free market. Software patents are a really big risk for OSS, praticularly where the granted patent is for the trivial (one click, scroll bars, progress bars etc.)
Now we talk free market - we get political (where are Stallman and Raymeond when u need them
As having a very long experience in the Digital (DEC) product range (Since 1975: PDP8, PDP11, VAX780.....) and having written many lines of Macro32 code for VMS apps including device drivers I make the following comments:
:-(
1. Cutler used VMS architectectural ideas in WinNT (Published fact)
2. One MAJOR ommission - probably the most important - was the Distributed Lock Manager (DLM) - which made VMS clustering work
3. Oracle via its purchase of Digital RDB IP and later licensing from Compaq have made the DLM the basis for their Real Application Cluster (RAC) technology
4. Had the DLM been licensed by M$ then WinNT etc may have had decent clustering (NB: A good DLM is critical to making clusters scale) - M$ didnt and suffer today because of that
5. HP are sitting on a goldmine of formerly Digital IP and like Digital cannot market it - very sad
6. Oracle are making huge forward steps standing on the shoulders of others
In the annotations, which were called "Notes", Ada Lovelace described how the Analytical Engine could be programmed and gave what many consider to be the first ever computer program.
:-)
She described the Analytical Engine in the following way [6]:
The distinctive characteristic of the Analytical Engine, and that which has rendered it possible to endow mechanism with such extensive faculties as bid fair to make this engine the executive right-hand of abstract algebra, is the introduction into it of the principle which Jacquard devised for regulating, by means of punched cards, the most complicated patterns in the fabrication of brocaded stuffs. It is in this that the distinction between the two engines lies. Nothing of the sort exists in the Difference Engine. We may say most aptly that the Analytical Engine weaves algebraical patterns just as the Jacquard-loom weaves flowers and leaves.
She also wrote in the Notes [6]:
Again, [the Analytical Engine] might act upon other things besides number, were objects found whose mutual fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations, and which should be also susceptible of adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the engine . . .
Ada Lovelace born 1815; Alan Turing born 1912
The sexy chic wins! Too bad that the Ada programming language was named after her - way to formal, I think she would have liked something kool like perl - a love^^^^necklace of perls
Ok people above the equator...
:-) Yes its lame, but it is late Tuesday afternoon as I write and I really need to go home.
I live down under (in Australia). Given that spintronics is based on the concepts of up and down, would I need to install spintronic equipment inverted?
Haradine is Roman Catholic (I think) - not exactly fringe
Tasmania (a state of .au) has Senator Brian Haradine. Haradine has pushed for Govt subsidised Internet in the economically depressed town of Launceton in Tasmania with the provision that the ADSL roll out in that area have content filtering. Haradine's justification is the "protection of children from pornography", which of itself is a good thing - his implementraion method has huge free speach implications. This is how .au politicians think - they need some tech education.
Any of these type of laws, no matter how well intended, reduce our basic freedoms.
The FTA has many benefits for both .au and .us; but some of the bagage like the DMCA are really really bad and driven by very commercial interests.
Scenario...
1. Company XYZ uses Linux.
2. Darl & Co sue XYZ
3. XYZ put up a really weak defense, maybe they are funded by a Redmond based company
4. Darl & Co win the case
5. There is now a LEGAL PRECEDENT
Oh cr*p! Now IBM, Red Hat, et. al. have major issues.